REVIEW 


N*REVIEW, 


AN  ARTICLE  OF  THE  NORTH  AMERICA 

OCTOBER,  1834. 


DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES/* 

FROM  1783  TO  1789,  x: 
"  Published  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  at  Washington." 

•  „ 

WITH  ^k, 

AN  EXAMINATION  AND  COMPARISON  !.  ' 


RELATIVE  MERIT,  TRUTH,  AND  PLAN  OE  THAT  WORK,  CONTRASTED  WITH 
THE  DIPLOMATIC  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  THE  REVOLUTION, 
EDITED  BY  JARED  SPARKS,  BOSTON. 


WILLIAM  A.  WEAVER. 


WASHINGTON: 
PRINTED  BY  BLAIR  AND  RIVES. 
1835. 


8  * 


Ex  IGtbrtH 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
" Ever'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


REVIEW.  * 


The  American  Quarterly  Review  for  September,  1834,  contains  an  article 
upon  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United  States,  from  the  signing 
of  the  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace,  September  10,  1783,  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  March  4,  1789,  published  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  conformably  to  an  act  of  Congress,  approved  May  5,  1832,  7  vols. 
8vo,  Washington,  1833. 

An  opinion  of  the  publication  is  expressed  by  the  Quarterly  Review,  in  the 
following  extract,  page  167:  "  Congress  inserted  in  the  appropriation  bill  for 
•  the  year  1832,  a  clause  enabling  the  Secretary  of  State  to  publish  the  work 
which  we  have  made  the  subject  of  this  article.  This  the  Secretary  has  done 
in  a  very  creditable  mode,  and  seven  volumes  are  the  result  of  his  labors." 

The  editor's  opinion  of  Mr.  Sparks'  previous  publication,  is  also  pronounc- 
ed creditable  to  him;  but  it  is  evident,  from  an  observation  in  a  succeeding 
paragraph — "  The  present  work  is  a  continuation  of  the  former,  on  the  same 
liberal  plan  of  excluding  nothing  from  the  contents  which  could  shed  any  light  on 
the  Diplomatic  History  of  the  period  designated  by  the  law" — that  the  writer  has 
been  deceived,  and  with  him  the  American  public  generally.  In  relation  to 
the  second  series,  from  1783  to  1789,  the  remark  is  strictly  correct- — nothing 
was  excluded  within  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  act  of  Congress.  The 
selection  was  made  solely  relative  to  time  and  diplomacy;  and  the  nation 
has  before  it,  in  the  second  series  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  from  '83 
to  '89,  the  whole  correspondence  of  the  period.  But  the  supposition  that  Mr. 
Sparks,  in  his  publication,  pursued  the  same  course  "  of  excluding  nothing 
from  the  contents  which  could  shed  any  light  on  the  Diplomatic  History  of  the 
period,"  is  a  manifest  error,  and  which  it  is  one  of  the  objects  of  this  paper  to 
correct. 

In  the  introduction  to  Sparks'  publication,  page  xi,  he  observes  that,  "In 
preparing  the  papers  for  the  press,  according  to  the  spirit  of  the  resolution  of 
Congress,  the  first  rule  has  been  to  print  such  matter  only  as  possesses  some 
value,  either  as  containing  historical  facts,  or  illustrating  traits  of  character,  or 
developing  the  causes  of  prominent  events."  "  Those  parts  of  the  corres- 
pondence chiefly  marked  with  personalities,  and  touching  little  on  public  inte- 
rests, have  been  omitted,  as  neither  suited  to  the  dignity  of  the  subject,  nor  to 
the  design  of  this  publication." 

With  this  admission,  apparently  made  with  frankness,  that  every  thing  of  a 
certain  character  was  omitted,  Mr.  Sparks  still  gets  the  credit  "  of  excluding 
nothing  from  the  contents  which  could  shed  any  light  on  the  Diplomatic  His- 
tory of  the  period  designated  by  the  law."  In  the  course  of  our  examination  of 
statements  made,  and  observations  hazarded  by  the  North  American  Review, 
in  their  article  II,  October,  1834,  reviewing  the  second  series  of  the  Diplo- 
matic Correspondence,  it  becomes  our  duty  to  show,  that  the  review  of  the 
North  American  is  partial,  unjust,  and  deceptive,  and  that  the  comparison 
which  they  have  undertaken  to  draw  between  the  Boston  and  Washington 


4 


editions,  is  an  odious  one,  engendered  by  a  feeling  of  disappointment  for  the 
friend  and  ex-editor  of  the  North  American  Review.  Mr.  Sparks  was  an 
applicant  before  Congress  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  the  job.  His  friends 
even  went  to  the  extrefhity  of  inserting  his  name  in  the  first  resolution  reported 
by  the  committee  authorizing  the  publication.  The  resolution  did  not  pass, 
notwithstanding  the  "extraordinary  qualifications  known  to  be  possessed  by 
that  gentleman:"  notwithstanding  "  his  laborious  researches  in  the  public  offices 
of  Great  Britain  and  France,  [where]  he  had  collected  ample  materials  which 
enabled  him  to  fill  up  numerous  and  important  chasms  in  the  various  parts  of 
the  correspondence  of  our  public  agents  preserved  in  the  Department  of 
State."  If  such  were  the  fact,  it  was  unkind  in  Congress,  unkind  in  the  Se- 
cretary of  State,  not  to  remunerate  the  laborious  researches  of  the  ex-editor 
of  the  North  American  Review;  but  we  are  not  told  what  those"  ample  mate- 
rials" are — no  descriptive  lists  oflettersand  documents  are  given,  which  are  to 
fill  up  the  important  chasms  in  the  correspondence  of  our  public  agents.  The 
truth  in  relation  to  this  matter  is,  there  were  no  chasms  to  fill  which  Mr.  Sparks 
could  supply  from  France  or  England.  The  assertion  is  a  gratuitous  boast. 
The  correspondence  of  Mr.  Adams,  from  England,  is  believed  to  be  entirely 
perfect;  were  it  otherwise,  surely  the  archives  of  England  would  be  the  last 
place  to  look  for  copies  of  the  correspondence  of  an  American  Minister  with 
his  own  Government;  and  Mr.  Adams  very  carefully  and  fully  transmitted  to 
the  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  at  home,  his  correspondence  with  the  Bri- 
tish Government.  We  ask  the  question,  and  we  ask  it  for  information,  What 
are  the  ample  materials  collected  in  Great  Britain,  which  "  would  enable  Mr. 
Sparks  to  fill  up  numerous  and  important  chasms?"  r'A  journal  or  despatch 
book  was  kept  in  the  office  of  Foreign  Affairs,  showing  the  date,  who  from, 
time  of  reception,  and  contents  of  every  letter  and  document  received  during 
Mr.  Jay's  administration  of  the  office;  and  no  surer  guide  could  exist  to  detect 
an  hiatus  in  a- correspondence.  These  journals  were  constantly  referred  to, 
and  no  chasm  detected  in  Mr.  Adams'  correspondence.  In  the  correspon- 
dence of  Mr.  Dumas,  agent  at  the  Hague,  this  journal  was  made  available  in 
giving  a  list  of  the  lost  letters  of  that  agent,  p.  116,  vol.  7.  Copies  of  these 
lost  letters,  we  presume,  were  not  discovered  in  the  public  offices  of  Great  Bri- 
tain or  France.  This  is,  therefore,  not  one  of  the  chasms  which  the  "  extra- 
ordinary qualifications"  and  "laborious  researches"  of  the  ex-editor  of  the  North 
American  Review  would  have  enabled  him  to  fill.  Some  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
letters  have  been  lost;  but  the  above  observations  apply  equally  to  the  corres- 
pondence of  every  Minister  abroad. 

We  are  told  "  and  of  the  liberality  with  which  he  (Mr.  Sparks)  was  disposed  to 
make  use  of  these  materials,  for  the  advantage  of  the  great  national  work  confided 
to  him:  the  volumes  published  under  his  editorship,  bore  ample  testimony." 
Having  no  disposition  to  detract  from  the  "liberality"  of  the  ex-editor  of  the 
North  American  Review,  much  surprise  is  nevertheless  excited  by  the  infor- 
mation that  the  first  series  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  edited  by  Jared 
Sparks,  is  indebted  for  so  much  of  its  intrinsic  value,  to  the  materials  collected 
abroad.  Mr.  Sparks  is  silent  upon  this  subject  of  foreign  materials,  but  his 
remarks  in  the  1st  page  of  the  preface  to  the  1st  volume,  indeed,  show  conclu- 
sively that  it  was  from  the  Department  of  State  alone  he  obtained  the  neces- 
sary documents  for  the  work.  Pains  have  been  taken  to  examine  two  or  three 
of  the  printed  volumes,  and  as  far  as  the  examination  went,  without  an  excep- 
tion every  letter  is  on  file  in  the  Department.    Hence  it  is  apparent  that  from 


5 


an  over  zeal  in  the  Reviewers  to  bedaub  Mr.  Sparks  with  praise,  and  to  mag- 
nify the  value  of  his  literary  and  historical  possessions,  censoriousness  and 
partiality,  have  got  the  better  of  truth  and  justice. 

The  name  of  Edward  Livingston  having  been  introduced  in  the  following 
paragraph,  in  a  manner  reflecting  upon  that  gentleman,  and  his  motives  of 
action,  in  appointing  a  person  whom  he  deemed  competent  to  superintend  the 
selection  and  publication  of  the  correspondence  from  1783  to  1789,  in  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Livingston  from  this  country,  justice  to  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  that  gentleman  requires  some  explanation  and  comment. 

*  "The  office  of  Secretary  of  State  was,  at  that  time,  filled  by  Mr.  Edward  Livingston.  This 
distinguished  gentleman  was  well  aware  of  the  reasons,  which  existed  for  confiding  to  Mr.  Sparks 
the  care  of  the  continuation  of  the  work,  of  which  he  had  edited  the  commencement,  in  a  man- 
ner equally  creditable  to  himself,  and  acceptable  to  the  public.  Had  it  been  in  his  power  to  do 
so,  uninfluenced  by  considerations  foreign  to  the  merits  of  the  question,  as  one  of  a  character 
purely  historical  and  literary,  Mr.  Livingston  would  have  put  the  preparation  of  the  proposed 
work  into  the  same  able  hands.  Unfortunately,  the  law  making  the  appropriation,  forbore  to  specify 
the  name  of  the  gentleman,  who  had  so  many  claims  to  be  selected  as  the  editor.  Keasons  of 
State,  if  they  may  be  dignified  by  that  name,  transformed  the  publication  into  a  printer's  job,  and 
compelled  the  Secretary  to  dispose  of  it  on  the  principles,  which  usually  govern  the  dispensation  of 
public  patronage.    It  was  necessary  lhat  the  work  should  be  printed  at  Washington." 

It  has  been  seen  that  an  attempt  was  made,  and  failed,  to  get  the  name 
of  Mr.  Sparks  inserted  by  a  resolution  of  Congress,  as  the  editor.  The 
matter  was  left  wholly  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  In  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Livingston,  we  will  not  undertake  to  assign  his  reasons  for  the  non-employ- 
ment of  Mr.  Sparks; '  but  we  will  undertake  to  show  that  there  existed 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  why  the  work  was  not  intrusted  to  him. 

1.  The  compensation  allowed  to  Mr.  Sparks  for  his  Revolutionary  Corres- 
pondence, had  been  unprecedented  and  extravagant. 

The  whole  cost  of  his  edition,  12  vols.  1000  copies,  at  $2  61  cents,  per 
volume,  was  $31,329  67 

Whole  cost  of  Washington  edition,  from  1783  to  '89,  7  vols. 

1000  copies,  at  $2  30.6  per  volume,         -       -       -  16,142  52 

Makes  a  saving  to  the  Government,  in  the  Washington  edition, 

of  thirty  cents  four  mills  per  volume,  7000  vols.    -       -  2,128 

Mr.  Sparks  received  $400  per  volume  for  editing  the  Diplomatic  Corres- 
pondence, 12  vols.  $4,800 

To  which,  as  a  part  of  his  profits,  add  the  difference  of  printing, 

&c,  30.4  cents  per  volume,  12,000  vols.    -  3,648 

Compensation  of  Mr.  Sparks,  $8,448 
This  sum  of  $8,448,  was  so  much  extra  profit  beyond  the  cost  of  the  Secret 
Journals,  $2  121  cents  per  volume,  upon  which  Mr.  Sparks'  contract  was 
based.    The  publisher  of  the  Secret  Journals  must  have  had  a  profit,  and  what- 
ever that  profit  was,  Mr.  Sparks  likewise  enjoyed  the  same,  besides  the  $8,448. 

In  addition  to  this  enormous  compensation,  Mr.  Sparks  made  a  private  job 
of  the  work,  printed  a  large  edition  for  private  sale,  and  he  can  best  tell,  if 
he  will,  how  much  more  he  realized  from  the  editorship  in  this  one  article  of 
"  public  patronage;"  which  appears  to  have  been  disposed  of  to  him  "  on 
principles,"  with  the  "  governing  dispensations"  of  which,  at  the  time,  the 
Reviewers  seem  to  have  been  familiar. 


*  North  American  Review,  page  303,  line  22,  for  October,  1834. 


6 


2.  The  Reviewers  observe,  "  it  was  necessary  that  the  work  should  be 
printed  at  Washington;"  and  although  this  is  said  ironically,  the  position  is, 
nevertheless,  true.  The  papers  and  documents  (with  the  exception  of  Mr. 
Sparks'  ample  materials,  obtained  during  his  laborious  researches  in  Great 
Britain  and  France)  form  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  archives  of  the  Department 
of  State;  and  the  Department  of  State  is  in  Washington,  and  the  Secretary 
of  State  for  the  time  being,  lives  in  Washington;  and  "under  his  direction," 
the  work  was  to  be  printed;  and  fortunately,  perhaps  news  to  the  Reviewers, 
numerous  printing  presses,  and  any  quantity  of  new  types,  may  be  had  in 
"  the  half  Babylon,  half  desert,  in  which  the  Government  at  present  is 
located"  That  a  gentleman  of  the  resplendent  talents  and  "  extraordinary 
qualifications"  of  the  accomplished  and  never-to-be-sufficiently-praised  ex- 
editor  of  the  North  American  Review,  was  not  to  be  found  within  the  scope 
of  Executive  patronage,  is  indeed  a  misfortune;  but,  fortunately,  yes,  the 
Reviewers  say  "fortunately,  the  Secretary  of  State,  [remember  reader,  they 
speak  of  Edward  Livingston,]  was  as  well  qualified  for  the  general  superin- 
tendence of  such  a  selection  as  any  gentleman  possibly  could  be  who  had  not 
made  that  branch  of  our  documentary  history  a  particular  study."  A  disin- 
terested person  would  probably  admit  the  sufficiency  of  the  reasons  already 
given,  for  not  sending  documents  five  hundred  miles  from  Washington  "  to  be 
printed  under  the  direction"  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  But  other  and  impor- 
tant reasons  exist,  why  Mr.  Sparks  should  not  have4  been  intrusted  with  the 
publication  of  the  second  series.  He  was  limited  by  the  resolution  of  Con- 
gress of  the  27th  March,  1818,  to  publishing  "  the  foreign  correspondence  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  from  the  first  meeting  thereof,  down  to  the 
date  of  the  ratification  of  the  definitive  treaty  of  peace,  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  in  the  year  1783,  except  such  parts  of  the  said  foreign 
correspondence  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  may  deem  it  improper  at 
this  time  to  publish."  Here  was  a  distinct,  specific  limit,  as  it  regards  time. 
The  consideration  shown  by  Mr.  Sparks  for  the  law  or  resolution,  is  strikingly 
manifested  by  his  transcending  the  designated  limits,  and  publishing  the  letters 
of  Franklin  down  to  November  29,  1788,  five  years  subsequent  to  the  limit. — 
See  vol.  4,  pp.  164-228.  Omitting  the  correspondence  of  Lafayette,  which  is 
voluminous  during  the  Revolutionary  period,  he  commences  the  correspon- 
dence of  Lafayette  March  30,  1782,  and  brings  it  down  to  October  15,  1787, 
four  years  later  than  the  limit. — See  vol.  10,  pp.  7-63.  He  has  likewise  pub- 
lished ninety  pages  of  R.  Morris'  correspondence  subsequent  to  the  10th  Sep- 
tember, 1783,  and  omitted  his  correspondence  anterior  to  February  7, 1781. — 
See  vol.  12,  pp.  411-502.  In  the  preface  to  Morris'  correspondence,  Mr. 
Sparks  says,  "  the  letters  here  published  are  a  selection  only  from  the  large 
mass,  which  has  been  preserved." — See  vol.  11,  p.  345. 

The  correspondence  of  Luzerne  terminates  1787,  and  a  note  is  appended 
to  a  letter  of  the  Chevalier,  stating  that  certain  letters,  and  a  paper  on  com- 
merce of  the  Marquis  de  Lafayette,  are  missing,  (see  vol.  11,  p.  184,)  which 
is  not  the  fact.  They  exist  in  duplicate  in  the  Department  of  State,  and 
have  been  printed  by  us  in  their  appropriate  places. — See  second  series,  vol. 
1,  p.  391.  Having  pointed  out  some  of  the  errors  of  commission  of  the  editor 
of  such  "  extraordinary  qualifications,"  that  time  and  space  and  laws  and 
resolutions  impose  no  barrier  to  his  genius,  we  proceed  to  notice  some  of  the 
sins  of  omission,  which  our  "  laborious  researches,"  not  "  in  the  public  offices 
of  Great  Britain  or  France,"  but  in  those  of  the  "  half  Babylon,  hall  desert, 
in  which  the  Government  at  present  is  located,"  enable  us  to  point  out. 


7 


The  resolution  under  which  Mr.  Sparks  published,  contained  the  customary 
reservation,  whenever  public  documents  are  called  for,  "  except  such  parts  of 
the  said  foreign  correspondence  as  the  President  of  the  United  States  may 
deem  it  improper  at  this  time  to  publish."  This  reservation  of  discretionary 
power  to  the  Executive  over  what  shall  be  printed  of  foreign  correspondence, 
at  all  times  correct,  was  evidently  here  inserted  pro  forma.  But  what  is  Mr. 
Sparks'  reading  of  the  exception?  Why  to  omit  ad  libitum,  to  cut,  to  carve, 
as  he  would  a  school  boy's  theme,  the  writings  of  the  diplomatists  of  the 
Revolution;  to  rewrite,  or,  to  use  his  own  language,  "  the  editor  has  taken 
the  liberty  to  make  free  corrections  of  the  author's  style,  and  to  omit  a  good 
deal  of  irrelevant  matter." — See  note,  page  267,  vol.  9.  The  extent  of  this 
"  good  deal"  omitted,  we  will  undertake  to  show  in  two  or  three  of  the  cor- 
respondences, and  having  done  so,  we  solicit  the  Quarterly  Review  to  a  recon- 
sideration of  the  opinion,  that  Mr.  Sparks  "  excluded  nothing  from  the  con- 
tents which  could  shed  any  light  on  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  period  desig- 
nated by  the  law." 

Of  the  correspondence  of  Arthur  Lee,  Mr.  Sparks  has  published  vol.  2, 
282  pages.  There  are  in  the  archives  of  the  Department  of  State,  946  pages 
of  that  Minister's  correspondence,  each  of  which  recorded  page  in  large  folio, 
is  fully  equivalent  to  a  printed  page.  Here  is  an  omission  of  664  pages, 
(more  than  sufficient  to  fill  an  entire  volume,)  a  single  omission,  which  we 
think  fully  justifies  Mr.  Sparks  in  saying  he  has  omitted  a  "  good  deal." 

Of  his  cutting  and  carving,  we  give  one  of  numerous  examples,  in  a  letter 
of  A.  Lee,  of  the  25th  February,  1779,  vol.  2,  p.  231,  where  the  letter  is 
mutilated  to  the  extent  of  reducing  a  document  of  twenty-three  closely  writ- 
ten pages  to  less  than  two  printed  pages.  Here  we  have  what  has  been  called 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  "  a  diminutive  metamorphit,"  not  of  an  unwritten 
speech,  but  of  an  authentic  document,  the  contents  of  which  bear  strongly  on 
a  moot  case  of  the  present  day. 

Thirty-two  letters  of  the  Marine  and  Secret  Committee,  of  which  John 
Hancock  was  chairman,  from  the  30th  May,  1776,  to  the  29th  December, 
1776,  addressed  to  S.  Deane,  W.  Bingham,  commanders  of  continental  ships, 
and  others,  seventy-one  pages,  are  omitted  in  toto. 

The  correspondence  of  Oliver  Pollock,  an  accredited  agent  of  the  United 
States  at  New  Orleans,  and  subsequently  at  the  Havana,  with  the  Secret  and 
Commercial  Committees;  and  letters  of  those  Committees  to  O.  Pollock,  from 
June  12,  1777,  to  July  19,  1779;  with  letters  from  General  Galvez — are 
omitted.  The  correspondence  of  Pollock  embraces  a  period  from  the  10th 
October,  1776,  to  1782—232  pages. 

Three  consecutive  reports  of  Committees  on  instructions  to  the  Delegates 
of  Massachusetts,  relative  to  the  fisheries,  boundaries,  &c.  The  second  report, 
dated  March  13,  1782,  is  an  important  state  paper,  and  is  supported  by  refer- 
ences to  44  documents — 51  pages.  These  papers  might  have  been  introduced 
in  Mr.  Sparks'  collection  with  advantage.  They  contain  no  "  personalities," 
and  are  cerlainly  not  "  irrelevant,"  as  they  tend  strongly  to  elucidate  a  much 
vexed  and  unsettled  question  of  the  present  day,  in  which  Massachusetts  is 
interested. 

In  the  seventh  volume  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  (second  series,) 
we  have  given,  page  287,  a  correspondence  of  J.  Paul  Jones.  This  volume 
is  pronounced  by  the  North  American  Review  to  be  "  decidedly  superior  to 
that  of  most  of  its  predecessors."    The  insertion  of  the  correspondence  of 


8 


Jones,  it  is  therefore  to  be  presumed,  meets  their  approbation.  We  may  then 
venture  to  ask,  why  Mr.  Sparks  did  not  avail  himself  of  the  materials  in  the 
Department  of  State,  and  publish  the  earlier  correspondence  of  Jones,  which 
is  intrinsically  valuable,  and  certainly  not  irrelevant  to  the  history  of  the 
times.  His  correspondence  with  Franklin,  Adams,  Dumas,  and  the  French 
Ministers  at  Paris  and  the  Hague,  is  voluminous,  and  would  have  given  addi- 
tional interest  to  his  volumes.  Show  a  page,  for  example,  in  the  published 
work  of  deeper  interest  than  his  well-written  and,;  thrilling  descriptions  of  his 
conquest  of  the  Drake,  and  subsequently  of  the  Serapis  and  Countess  of 
Scarborough.  Mr.  Sparks  gives,  in  vol.  3,  page  77,  the  instructions  from 
Dr.  Franklin  to  Commodore  Jones,  page  205,  the  agreement  between  Jones 
and  the  officers  of  his  squadron,  and  it  does  appear  to  us  that  the  letter  of 
Commodore  Jones  to  Dr.  Franklin,  of  the  3d  of  October,  1779,  of  18  pages, 
giving  an  account  of  his  cruise  and  the  capture  of  the  Serapis,  and  his  letter 
to  the  Commissioners,  of  the  27th  May,  1778,  containing  a  relation  of  the 
capture  of  the  Drake,  14  pages,  might  at  least  with  equal  propriety,  have  been 
introduced.    Jones'  correspondence  would  fill  a  volume. 

We  now  come  to  the  correspondence  of  Charles  W.  F.  Dumas,  and  what 
purports  to  be  a  translation  thereof — vol.  9,  page  254.  Upon  comparing  this 
correspondence  with  the  originals,  we  are  strongly  reminded  of  a  down-east 
hyperbole,  of  something  less  than  nothing — "  the  little  end  of  nothing  whittled 
down."  This  correspondence  has  been  whittled  and  whittled,  until,  if  it  were 
possible  for  the  author  to  see  the  correspondence  attributed  to  him,  he  would 
either  be  much  astonished  at  his  own  brevity,  or  the  wonderful  powers  of  con- 
densation of  his  translator.  In  vol.  9,  Mr.  Sparks  has  given  us  seventy-one 
letters  of  Dumas,  (or  rather  fragments  of  letters.)  From  the  date  of  Dumas' 
first  letter,  April  30,  1776,  to  the  23d  June,  1783,  there  are  on  file  117  letters, 
with  numerous  important  documents  and  state  papers  enclosed.  Here  is  then 
an  omission  of  46  letters,  to  say  nothing  of  enclosures.  But  this  is  not  the 
worst;  of  the  manner  in  which  those  published  have  been  mutilated,  we  pro- 
pose to  give  an  example. 

We  will  take  the  letter  of  the  1st  September,  1776,  erroneously  dated  by 
Mr.  Sparks,  the  30th  September,  1776,  (vol.  9,  p.  288,)  and  contrast  the 
original  with  the  translation  in  opposing  columns. 


D.  ler  7br,  1776. 

Monsieur, 

Apres  avoir  envoye  a.  votre  correspondant 
a  St.Eustache  dont  vous  m'avezdonne  l'addresse 
dans  votre  lettre  du  12e  xbr.  1775,  ma  troisieme 
lettre  cottee  C,  dont  vous  trouverez  ci-joint  un 
ample  extrait,  qu'il  vous  plaira  de  relire,  du 
moins  la  fin  ou  j'ai  ajoute  quelque  chose,  je 
commence  ma  quatrieme  Depeche  D. 

En  supposant  qu'il  ne  vous  soit  parvenu 
qu'une  seule  de  mes  trois  precedentes  depeches, 
vous  ne  devez  pas  etre  embarrasse  de  lire  ce 
qui  sera  chifTre  ici  et  a  l'avenir. 

Ce  Hortalez  dont  Mr.  A.  L.  votre  ami  m'a 
parle  dans  deux  de  ses  lettres  comme  Charge 
d' Affaires  du  Congres  qui  viendroit  me  voir,  et 
a  qui  il  avoit  donne  mon  adresse  n'a  pas  encore 
paru  devant  moi. 

Je  n'ai  pas  regu  non  plus  la  lettre  que  vous 
m'avez  ecrite  apres  celle  du  12e  Decembre  1775, 


To  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence: 
September  30,  1776. 

Gentlemen, 

After  having  sent  to  your  correspondent  at 
St.  Eustatia,  whose  address  you  gave  me  in  your 
letter  of  the  12th  December,  1775,  my  third 
letter  of  which  you  have  here  annexed  a  large 
extract,  I  commence  my  fourth  despatch. 


M.  Hortalez,  of  whom  Mr.  Arthur  Lee  spoke 
in  two  of  his  letters,  has  not  yet  appeared; 


nor  have  I  received  the  letter  that  you  say  yon 
have  written  to  me  between  that  of  the  12th 


9 


et  avant  celle  du  2e  Mars  1776,  comme  vous  me 
1'apprenez  dans  cette  derniere. 

La  non-apparition  de  cet  homme  et  de  cette 
Iettre  m'inquiete  et  m'afflige,  non  seulement 
parcc  que  tout  ce  qui  me  vient  de  vous,  Mon- 
sieur, et  de  vos  amis,  m'est  cher  et  precieux 
plus  que  je  ne  saurois  le  dire  mais  aussi,  et  sur- 
tout  parce  que  je  crains  que  le  service  du  Con- 
gres  general  n'en  souffre. 

Le  respectable  porteur  de  celle  du  2e  Mars 
est  arrive  a  Paris  le  7e  Juillet  d'ou  il  me  l'a 
envoyee  avec  une  des  siennes  datee  du  26e 
Juillet.  J'en  ai  une  autre  de  lui  du  18e  Aout, 
ou  il  me  marque  "  that  he  has  a  certain  pros- 
pect of  succeeding  in  his  business."  II  m'y 
fait  aussi  une  promesse  qui  me  rend  heureux 
d'avance,  c'est  de  vouloir  bien  loger  chez  moi, 
ma  femme  a  deja  prepare  son  appartement;  et 
nous  verifierons  la  fable  de  Philemon  et  Baucis: 
car  un  homme  vertueux  est  pour  moi  un  Jupi- 
ter, et  je  me  trouverai  plus  honore  d'un  tel  hote, 
que  d'une  douzaine  de  ces  princes  qui  ont  ven- 
du  leurs  sujets  a  vos  ennemis  s'il  n'arrive  rien 
qui  altere  ses  desseins,  j'aurai  ce  bonheur  au 
mois  d'Octobre  prochaine. 

Du  30e  7  br.  Je  vous  ai  dit,  Monsieur,  dans 
ma  precedente,  que  les  lettres  de  Mr.  A.  L.  ont 
beaucoup  contribue  a  rendre  mes  visites  mes 
lettres  et  mes  memoires,  agreable  dans  une  cer- 
taine  maison.  En  voici  une  que  j'en  ai  recue 
depuis  peu,  qui  vous  le  prouvera. 

Du  26e  Aout,  1776. 

Apres  m'avoir  parle  d'un  service  qu'il  veut 
bien  me  rendre  en  son  pays  ou  j'ai  quelques 
affaires  a.  demeler,  dont  nous  sommes  convenus 
de  nous  servir  comme  de  pretexte  pour  mas- 
quer nos  entrevues,  voici  comme  il  poursuit: 
Madame  ******  a  pris  la  peine  de  me  remettre 
vos  lettres,  et  je  vous  prie  de  m!  envoy  er  par  elle 
la  suite  de  tant  de  choses  interressantes,  y  com- 
pris  le  recti  de  la  personne  que  vous  attendiez 
(du  porteur  de  votre  lettre  de  Philadelphie  de 
2e  Mars.)  Je  vous  prie  de  me  mander  tout  ce 
qui  vous  est  parvenu  depuis  la  derniere  lettre 
que  vous  avez  eu  la  bonte  de  m'ecrire.  Je  suis 
dans  l'usage  de  recevoir  des  paquets  de  toutes 
les  mains;  c'est  le  devoir  de  mon  poste.  Ainsi 
je  recevrai  avec  reconnoisance,  mais  d'une  ma- 
nieredistingueeceque  vous  aurez  la  bonte  deme 
faire  passer,  comme  ce  qu'il  y  aura  surement  de 
mieux  en  f aits,  en  portraits,  en  situations.  Puis 
toutes  les  plumes  n'ont  pas  le  talent  de  la  votre. 

"  Dans  tout  ce  que  Je  demande  a  votre  ami- 
tie,  Monsieur,  vous  aurez  bien  du  nouveau  sou- 
vent  a  exposer." 

L'eloge  donne  a.  ma  plume  doit  retourner  a 
Mr.  A.  L.  car  Je  ne  fais  que  le  traduire. 

Du  ler.  7  bre. 

"Je  vous  prie  de  continuer  a  me  donner  de 
vos  nouvelles.  Je  vous  remercie  bien  sincere- 
ment  du  dernier  envoi.    (Je  lui  decouvris  ce  qui 

concernoit  Mr.  Porteur  de  votre  lettre  du 

2e  Mars,  Apres  en  avoir  eu  la  permission  de  ce 
dernier.)    "  Rien  n'est  plus  interessant,  et  n'e- 
claire  peut  etre  d'avantage  les  matieres." 
3 


of  December,  1775,  and  that  of  the  2d  of  March, 
1776. 

The  non-appearance  of  this  gentleman  and 
of  the  letter  here  referred  to,  disquiets  me  some- 
what, not  only  because  all  that  comes  to  me 
from  you,  gentlemen,  and  from  your  friends,  is 
dear  and  precious  to  me,  but  also,  and  above 
all,  because  I  fear  that  the  service  of  the  general 
Congress  may  suffer  by  it. 

The  bearer  of  your  letter  of  the  2d  March 
(Silas  Deane)  arrived  at  Paris  the  7th  July, 
whence  he  sent  it  to  me,  with  one  of  his  own, 
dated  the  26th.  I  have  another  from  him  of 
the  18th  of  August,  in  which  he  remarks  to  me 
"  that  he  has  a  certain  prospect  of  succeeding  in 
his  business."  He  proposes  also  to  visit  Hol- 
land. 


I  have  before  told  you,  that  the  letters  I  re- 
ceived had  contributed  much  to  render  my  visits, 
my  letters,  and  memoirs,  agreeable  in  a  certain 
quarter.  This  will  be  seen  from  the  following 
note,  which  I  received  a  short  time  since  dated 
August  26: 

After  having  spoken  to  me  of  a  service,  which 
he  had  consented  to  render  me  in  his  country, 
where  I  had  some  affairs  to  settle,  and  which 
we  had  agreed  upon  as  a  pretext  to  mark  our 
interviews,  the  writer  thus  proceeds:  "  Madame 
******  has  taken  the  trouble  to  send  me  your 
letters,  and  I  beg  you  to  send  me  by  her  all  in- 
teresting particulars,  including  the  narration  of 
the  person  whom  you  expect,  (Silas  Deane.) 
I  pray  you  to  send  me  all  that  you  have  receiv- 
ed since  your  last  letter.  I  receive  packets  from 
all  quarters;  it  pertains  to  my  office.  So  I  shall 
receive  with  gratitude  whatever  you  may  have 
the  goodness  to  send  me." 


10 


Du  16e.  7  bre. 

"  Vous  m'aviez  flatte-  que  J'aurois  l'honneur 
de  vous  voir  dans  le  courant  de  la  semaine  qui 
vient  de  finir.  C'est  cette  attente  qui  m'a  em- 
peche  de  vous  repondre,  comptant  vous  dire 
de  vive  voix  le  reste,  comme  Je  vous  le  dirai  au 
premier  voyage  que  vous  ferez  a  la  Haie. 

"  Tout  ce  que  vous  m'avez  recorumande  a  ete 
fait  et  achemme  suivant  vos  desirs.  Les  miens 
seront  toujours  de  m enter  votre  confiance  et  de 
vous  servir.* 

Je  lui  avois  envoy e  ouverte,  avec  un  cachet 
volant  la  lettre  que  Je  vous  ai  ecrite  par  St. 
Domingue.  Nous  etions  convenus  de  cela  de 
bouche,  et  il  m'avoit  promis  de  l'envoyer  a  Bor- 
deaux bien  recommande.  J'ai  lieu  de  croire  que 
cette  lettre  a  ete  envoyee  et  lue  a.  de  certaines 
personnes  pour  qui  j'avois  mis  expres  a  la  fin 
de  la  lettre,  que  lorsque  par  une  legislation  et 
constitution  sage  vous  aurez  courrone,  Mes- 
sieurs, l'ouvrage  de  votre  liberte,  je  mourrai  con- 
tent d'avoir  vu  un  grand  r.  et  une  grande  rep. 
vouloir  sincerement  le  bien  des  peuples. 

J'ai  recu  il  y  a  quelques  jours  une  autre  lettre 
de  Mr.  S.  D.  de  Paris,  14e.  7  bre.  toutes  celles 
que  je  recois  de  lui  comme  de  vous,  Messieurs;, 
me  sont  precieuses;  et  celle  ci  Test  doublement, 
puisque,  outre  les  expressions  les  plus  aifec- 
tueuses  dont  elle  est  remplie,  mon  zele  pour 
votre  cause,  Messieurs,  y  est  recompense  par  le 
temoignage  de  l'avoir  bien  servie.  Je  ne  puis 
resister  a  la  tentation  de  transcrire  ici  ce  qu' 
il  me  dit  la  dessus. 

The  measures  you  took  before  my  arrival 
here,  are  perfectly  right.  You  are  entirely  in 
the  right  in  saying  that  the  H.  of  B.  are  the 
allies  ive  should  first  and  principally  court; 
that  F.  is  at  the  head  of  this  H.,  and,  there- 
fore, what  is  done  here,  is  sure  to  be  done  by 
the  -whole.  This,  therefore,  requires  my  whole 
attention;  and  I  can  only  say  to  yon,  my  pros- 
pects are  no  ivay  discouraging.  J  hope  in  per- 
son soon  to  tell  you  how  very  much  I  am  yours 
and  your  lady's. 

Je  ne  saurois  rien  aj outer  de  plus  analogue  a 
ce  que  vous  venez  de  lire,  que  les  assurances  de 
mon  parfait  attachement  pour  les  Etats  Unis  de 
l'Amerique  Septentrionale  et  pour  leurs  dignes 
Representants  au  Congres  general.  Daignez 
recevoir,  Monsieur,  celles  de  mon  profond  res- 
pect pour  tous  les  membres  en  general,  et  pour 
vous  et  Messrs.  Dickinson  et  Jay  en  particulier. 

Vouspouvez,  Monsieur,  mettre  a.  Tavenir  mon 
vrai  nom  sur  vos  lettres,  comme  vous  avez  fait 
ci-devant,  et  les  adresser,  sous  convert,  soit  a, 
Mr.  Marc  Michel  Bey  Libraire  a  Amsterdam, 
soit  a  Mr.  A.  StucJcey  merch't,  Rotterdam, 
selon  la  destination  du  Vaisseau  qui  les  portera. 

Pour  pouvoir  finir  cette  lettre  a  mon  aise,  j'ai 
fait  promener  mes  deux  eleves  avec  une  dame, 
en  m'engageant  a  amuser  son  nourigon;  ce  mar- 
mouset  s'est  si  bien  amuse,  qu'il  m'a  jette  l'e- 
critoire  sur  une  feuille  de  cette  de  peche.  Je 
n'ai  recopie  que  ce  qu'il  a  barbouille,  afin  de 
pouvoir  envoyer  mon  paquet  sans  retard. 


I  have  sent  to  him  open  with  a  flying  seal, 
the  letter  that  I  wrote  you  by  St.  Domingo.  We 
agreed  on  this  verbally,  and  he  promised  me  to 
send  it  to  Bordeaux  well  recommended.  I  have 
cause  to  think  that  this  letter  has  been  forward- 
ed, and  pleased  certain  persons,  on  whose  ac- 
count I  had  expressed,  at  the  close  of  the  letter, 
that  when  by  legislation  and  a  wise  constitu- 
tion, you  shall  have  crowned  the  work  of  your 
liberty,  I  shall  die  content  with  having  seen  a 
great  King,  and  a  great  Republic,  sincerely  wish 
the  good  of  the  people. 

I  received  some  days  ago  another  letter  from 
Mr.  Deane,  dated  at  Paris,  14th  September. 
All  the  letters  that  I  have  received  from  him,  as 
well  from  you,  are  precious  to  me,  and  this  one 
doubly  so,  since  besides  the  kind  expressions 
with  which  it  is  filled,  my  zeal  for  your  cause 
is  recompensed  by  the  testimony  that  I  have 
well  served  it. 


1 1 


Si  je  continue  de  ne  pas  signer  mon  nom,  ce 
n'est  point  par  pusillanimity  mais  parceque  je 
crois  que  votre  service  exige  que  je  reste  encore 
quelque  temps  inconnu,  au  moins  jusqu'  a  ce 
que  Mr.  D.  vienne  loger  chez  moi:  car  alors  je 
serai  connu  partout  pour  le  plus  zele  Americain 
de  toute  la  Republique,  et  je  m'en  ferai  une 
gloire.  Tout  ce  qui  pourroit  m'en  arriver  seroit 
la  perte  de  mon  poste  actuel:  mais  en  ce  cas  je 
suis  sur  que  le  Congres  me  dedommageroit  par 
une  subsistance  equivalente  pour  moi  et  les 
miens,  vu  que  je  pourrai  continuer  de  lui  etre 
utile,  autant,  et  plus  encore  que  par  le  passe, 
parce  que  je  ne  serai  plus  gene  par  d'autres  de- 
voirs, et  que  toute  ma  personne  pourra  etre 
en  tout  temps,  et  en  tout  lieu  au  service,  de  l'A- 
merique.  J'ai  ete  bien  mortifie  (et  je  l'ai  mar- 
que dans  maderniere  lettre  a  Mr.  D.)  de  ne  pas 
etre  libre  en  dernier  lieu.  J'aurois  vole  a  P. 
pour  lui  aider,  au  moins  par  la  connoissance  que 
J'ai  de  plusieurs  langues  Europeennes. 

J'ai  une  autre  lettre  de  Mr.  S.  D.  de  Paris, 
3e.  8  bre.  en  voici  l'extrait.  "  Since  my  last 
in  which  I  mentioned  the  King  of  Prussia, 
I  have  attained  a  method  of  sounding  that  mon- 
arch's sentiments  more  directly  through  another 
channel,  which  voluntarily  offering,  I  have  ac- 
cepted, and  therefore  waive  writing  on  the  sub- 
ject, for  the  present,  any  thing"  (il  m'avoit 
parle  d'un  memoire  sur  lequel  j'aurois  compose 
une  lettre  pour  that  monarch)  "  save  that  you 
may  undoubtedly  serve  the  United  States  of 
America  most  essentially  in  this  affair  in  a  few 
weeks  from  tins.  The  attention  to  my  business 
here,  the  critical  situation  of  affairs  at  this  Court 
and  the  anxious  suspense*  for  the  events  at 
New  York  and  Canada,  have  actually  fixed  me 
here,  and  having  received  no  intelligence  for 
some  time  past,  has  well  nigh  distracted  me.  I 
have  however  favorable  prospects,  and  the  most 
confirmed  hopes  of  effecting  my  views  in  Eu- 
rope." 

J'ai  une  autre  lettre  de  Mr.  A.  L.  de  Londres 
23e.  Sept.  ou  il  me  dit  entr'  autres  "  We  may 
every  day  expect  to  hear  of  a  decisive  action 
at  New  York.  Decisive  I  mean  as  to  the  fate 
of  New  York,  and  of  General  Howe,  but  not 
of  America,  which  depends  very  little  upon  the 
event  of  New  York  being  taken  or  saved.  I 
have  been  apprized  by  Hortalez  that  the  busi- 
ness for  which  I  recommended  him  to  you  is  to  be 
transacted  through  France,  which  is  the  reason 
of  your  not  seeing  him." 

Je  terminerai  cette  Depeche  par  vous  dire 
Monsieur  que  dans  la  derniere  entrevue  que 
J'ai  eue  avec  un  certain  personnage,  il  m'a  te- 
moigne  qu'on  est  fort  content  de  moi,  "  Conti- 
nuez  m'a  t'il  dit  de  nous  donner  des  copies, 
extraits,  traductions,  des  interessantes  lettres  que 
vous  recevez  de  vos  amis  dela  et  de^a  la  mer; 
etendez  meme  de  plus  en  plus  votre  correspon- 

*Oh  que  je  partage  bien  cette  anxiete  avec  ce 
digne  homme.  Dieu  veuille  que  nous  avion* 
bientot,  lui  et  moi,  de  bonnes  nouvellea. 


If  I  continue  not  to  sign  my  name,  it  is  not 
from  fear,  but  because  I  think  your  service  re- 
quires that  I  remain  yet  sometime  unknown,  at 
least  until  Mr.  Deane  arrives  here,  for  then  I  shall 
be  known  every  where,  for  the  most  zealous 
American  in  all  the  Republic,  and  it  will  be  my 
pride.  All  that  can  come  of  it  will  be  the 
loss  of  my  present  post;  but  in  this  case  I  am 
sure  that  Congress  will  indemnify  me  by  a  sub- 
sistence suitable  for  me  and  mine,  seeing  that  I 
shall  be  able  to  continue  useful  to  them  as  much 
and  even  more  than  in  time  past,  because  I  shall 
not  be  encumbered  with  other  duties,  and  all 
my  faculties  will  be  employed  in  the  service  of 
America.  I  have  been  much  mortified  in  not 
being  at  liberty,  as  I  have  expressed  to  Mr. 
Deane.  I  should  have  flown  to  Paris  to  assist 
him,  at  least  by  the  knowledge  I  have  of  many 
European  languages. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

DUMAS. 


12 


dence  multipliez  vos  correspondants  tant  que 
vous  pourrez;  devenez  le  canal,  le  centre,  de 
ce  que  vos  amis  auront  a  dire  a  leurs  amis  en 
Ang*  **  et  ceux  ci  a  leurs  amis  en  Am****  le 
confident  en  un  mot,  de  part  et  d' autre  et  pre- 
nez  moi  pour  le  votre  toujours,  et  vous  finerez 
par  entrer  en  fin  en  correspondence  avec  le  Mi- 
nistre  meme.  Je  le  verrai  frequemment  cet 
hiver,  et  Je  travaillerai  a  menager  cela." 

En  fin  Monsieur,  soufFrez  que  je  recommende 
a  votre  attention,  et  a  celle  du  Congres  Genl.  le 
Memoire  ci-joint  marque  par  un  N.  B.  pour 
surcroit  de  precaution,  je  mettrai  dans  ma  sui- 
vante  Depeche  une  copie  de  ce  memoire  et  je 
pourrai  alors  vous  apprendre  aussi,  Messieurs,  le 
succes  qu'il  aura  eu  a  Hambourg,  car  le  jeune 
homme  qui  s'en  est  charge  Fa  deja  envoye. 

Voici  un  Expose  des  droits  des  Colonies  a 
l'independence.  J'ignore  le  nom  du  brave  hom- 
me qui  en  est  l'auteur;  mais  le  manuscrit  m'a 
ete  envoye  par  rimprimeur,  pour  savoir  si  cela 
etoit  bon,  c'est  a  dire  en  langage  de  Li- 
braire,  s'il  se  debiteroit  bien.  Je  lui  ai  repondu 
qu'il  avoit  tout  ce  qu'il  faut  pour  le  meriter. 

Je  vous  recommande,  Messieurs,  avec  vos 
braves  armees,  et  tous  vos  braves  peuples,  a 
la  garde  et  protection  de  l'etre  souverainement 
bon  et  sage,  de  tout  mon  coeur,  qui  est  tout  a 
vous. 

Je  ferine  et  depeche  ce  paquet  aujourdhui  lOe 
Octobre. 

Du  10  Octobre  1776. 

Suite  de  la  Depeche  D. 

Au  moment,  Monsieur,  ou  J'alloisexpedier  ce 
paquet;  il  m'est  parvenu  une  lettre  avec  cette 
addresser  a  Monsieur,  Jtfonsieur  Deane,  en- 
voye par  le  Congres  des  Americains  actuelle- 
tnent  a  la  Haie  en  Hollande. 

E?i  Hollande. 

Demain  j'enverrai  cette  lettre  a.  son  addresse. 
Je  vois  a  de  certaines  marques,  qu'elle  vient 
d'angleterre.  Le  meme  personnage  par  lequel 
je  suis  en  relation  avec  une  certaine  Cour,  me 
l'a  envoyee  avec  une  lettre,  qui  dit  ce  qui  suit. 
"  On  m'a  addresse  de  Cambray  en  France,  sous 
mon  couvert,  par  la  poste  derniere,  la  lettre  que 
j'ai  l'honneur  de  vous  envoyer  ci  jointe.  Vous 
saurez  mieux  que  moi  ou  il  faut  la  faire  passer. 
Ainsi  par  egard  pour  vous  et  pour  vos  amis,  je 
crois  ne  pas  devoir  differer  un  moment  de  la 
confier  a.  Madame  ******  ayez  je  vous  supplie, 
la  bonte  de  vous  souvenir,  que  vous  m'avez 
promis  une  participation  a  tout  ce  qui  parvien- 
dra  dans  vos  ?nai?is  et  a  votre  co?inoissance,  de 
plus  d'un  endroit;  j'y  compte  avec  un  veritable 
empressement  pour  vous  servir." 

Vous  comprendrez  sans  doute,  Monsieur,  que 
c'est  dans  le  paquet  d'une  puissance,  qui  est 
bien  bonne  amie  des  Etats  Unis  de  l'Amerique 
cette  lettre  est  venue  jusqu'  a  moi. 


The  above  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  "free  corrections  and  omissions"  in 
which  Mr.  Sparks  indulged  himself.  As  far  as  it  goes,  we  think  it  likewise  a 
free  translation,  the  sense  and  meaning  of  the  original  being  but  a  secondary 


13 


consideration  to  rounded  paragraphs  and  well-turned  sentence?.  Mr.  Sparks 
addresses  the  letter  to  the  Committee  of  Secret  Correspondence — this  is,  per- 
haps, not  important,  except  that  it  is  not  true.  Mr.  Dumas,  at  that  time, 
corresponded  with  Dr.  Franklin;  and  Mr.  Sparks  has  published  the  evidence 
of  the  fact,  in  the  letters  of  Dr.  Franklin  to  Dumas. — See  vol.  9,  pp.  255, 
260,  290.  But,  as  one  deception  practised  generates  another,  it  becomes 
necessary,  throughout  the  letter,  to  translate  Monsieur,  Gentlemen;  which  is 
uniformly  done.  What  may  have  been  the  object  of  this,  we  do  not  pretend 
to  divine:  some  secret  of  Mr.  Sparks'  "  book-making"  with  which  we  are  unac- 
quainted. Another  specimen  of  translation,  and  we  are  done  with  this  portion 
of  the  subject.  In  the  original  letter,  7th  paragraph,  we  find  the  following 
expression:  "  nous  sommes  convenus  de  nous  servir  comme  de  pretexte  pour 
masquer  nos  entrevues;"  which  Mr.  Sparks  translates — "  We  had  agreed  upon 
as  a  pretext  to  mark  our  interviews."  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  writer  was 
to  conceal,  or  mask  their  interviews;  and  he  says  it  in  as  plain  language  as  it  is 
possible  to  employ;  and  yet,  Mr.  Dumas  is  made  to  say,  when  his  precise 
object  was  concealment,  the  opposite  to  his  intentions. 

As  it  is  obvious,  at  the  first  glance,  that  the  correspondence  from  '83  to '89, 
is  differently  arranged  from  that  of  Mr.  Sparks',  in  the  following  extract  from 
our  instructions,  we  show  the  plan  of  the  work:  "  Mr.  Weaver  and  Mr.  Knapp* 
will  collect  the  letters  written  by  the  Department  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
United  States,  from  the  peace  of  1783,  to  the  4th  day  of  March,  1789,  (whe- 
ther the  Department  was  administered  by  a  Secretary,  by  the  President  of 
Congress,  or  by  a  committee,)  written  to  Foreign  Ministers  residing  here,  or  to 
our  Diplomatic  Agents  residing  abroad,  and  the  answers  to  those  letters,  ar- 
ranging them  according  to  their  dates,  and  they  will  also  collect  all  the  com- 
munications to  our  Government,  by  foreign  agents  here,  and  by  our  Diplo- 
matic Agents  abroad  to  the  Governments  to  which  they  are  sent,  to  individuals 
on  public  business,  and  to  our  owTn  Government." 

"  The  correspondence,  and  other  papers  relating  to  each  foreign  Govern- 
ment, to  be  classed  together  generally  according  to  the  order  of  dates,  but  disre- 
garding that  order  so  far  as  to  arrange  the  papers  relating  solely  to  one  sub- 
ject, with  each  other  in  their  proper  order.  For  example,  if  in  the  correspon- 
dence between  our  Minister  in  France,  a  representation  is  made  on  the  first  of 
January,  and  the  answer  to  it  is  not  made  until  March,  the  answer  will  be  in- 
serted immediately  after  the  representation,  although  other  papers  may  intervene 
in  point  of  date.  This,  however,  is  to  be  observed  only  when  the  matter  is 
of  importance,  and  when  the  papers  relate  solely  to  one  subject;  otherwise,  the 
general  order  of  date  is  to  be  observed." 

This  plan  of  bringing  together  the  letter  and  answer,  and  papers  connected 
therewith,  we  think  has  its  advantages;  at  all  events  we  admit  it  a  fair  subject 
for  inquiry  and  criticism,  and  only  object  to  such  a  comparison  as  that  of  the 
writer  in  the  North  American  Review,  which  is  a  fair  sample  of  Boston 
prejudice,  dyed  in  the  wool. 

Mr.  Sparks  had  his  plan  too,  which  the  reviewers  are  so  much  in  love  with; 
they  do  not  intimate  which  charms  them  most,  the  plan  or  the  execution;  but 
one  or  both  are  worthy  of  a  learned  quotation: 

"  Servetur  ad  imum 
"  Qualis  ab  incepto  processerit,  et  sibi  constet." 


*  The  second  named  gentleman  did  not  act  under  hi*  appointment. 


14 


Let  us  see  what  this  plan  was,  so  worthy  of  being  continued  to  the  end. 
In  the  advertisement,  vol.  1,  p.  9,  he  says:  "  The  plan  adopted,  in  arranging 
the  papers  for  publication,  has  been  to  bring  together  those  of  each  Commis- 
sioner, or  Minister,  in  strict  chronological  order.  As  there  is  much  looseness, 
and  sometimes  confusion,  in  their  arrangement,  as  preserved  in  the  Department 
of  State,  this  plan  has  not  always  been  easy  to  execute.  The  advantage  of 
such  a  method,  however,  is  so  great,  the  facility  it  affords  for  a  ready  refer- 
ence and  consultation,  is  so  desirable,  and  the  chain  of  events  is  thereby  exhi- 
bited in  a  manner  so  much  more  connected  and  satisfactory,  that  no  pains 
have  been  spared  to  bring  every  letter  and  document  into  its  place,  in  the 
exact  order  of  its  date.  Thus  the  correspondence  of  each  Commissioner,  or 
Minister,  presents  a  continuous  history  of  the  acts  in  which  he  was  concerned, 
and  of  the  events  to  which  he  alludes." 

Mr.  Sparks  laid  down  a  plan  for  himself  of  perfect  ease  and  simplicity, 
and  we  will  not  pronounce  it  otherwise  than  a  very  good  plan — "  to  bring  toge- 
ther those  [letters]  of  each  Commissioner,  or  Minister,  in  strict  chronological 
order." 

Has  he  adhered  to  this  plan?  Not  at  all.  Every  correspondence,  notwith- 
standing his  assertion,  is  a  jumble  of  correspondents,  as  may  be  seen  by  glanc- 
ing over  the  tables  of  contents.  The  correspondence  of  Dumas,  vol.  9; 
contains  only  71  letters  of  Dumas,  and  73  letters  and  papers  from  others,  seve- 
ral of  which  are  not  even  addressed  to  him:  for  example,  the  [Due  de  la 
Vauguyon  to  John  Paul  Jones,  Oct.  29,  1779,  p.  378;  John  Paul  Jones  to 
the  Due  de  la  Vauguyon,  Texel,  Nov.  4,  1779,  p.  382;  John  |Paul  Jones  to 
B.  Franklin,  Alliance,  Texel,  Dec.  13,  1779,  p.  399;  and  many  others  of  sim- 
ilar affinity.  We  would  ask,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  where  is  the  pro- 
priety of  inserting  in  Dumas'  correspondence,  a  letter  of  John  Paul  Jones  to 
B.  Franklin?  Yet  this  is  a  plan  and  execution,  in  the  opinion  of  the  North 
American  Reviewers,  worthy  of  a  learned  quotation,  and  in  which  we  think 
there  is  a  greater  display  of  learning  than  of  impartial  criticism.  Of  the  nume- 
rous examples  of  the  same  kind  before  us,  we  will  point  the  attention  to  one 
other:  in  vol.  1,  is  given  the  correspondence  of  the  Commissioners  at  the 
Court  of  France.  Under  the  rule,  it  might  be  expected  to  find  all  the  letters 
of  the  Commissioners  "  brought  together  in  strict  chronological  order."  No 
such  thing!  In  Arthur  Lee's  correspondence,  vol.  2,  for  letters  to  and  from 
the  Commissioners,  see  pp.  21,  23,  24,  36,  58,  64,  72,  79,  86,  86,  113,  116, 
130;  vol.  2,  pp.  429,  430,  other  letters  of  the  Commissioners  may  be  found  in 
the  correspondence  of  R.  Izard.  If  Mr.  Sparks  ever  had  any  thing  like  a 
digested  plan,  he  certainly  got  bravely  over  it  before  he  got  to  the  end  of  the 
2d  volume. 

From  a  close  examination  of  Dumas'  printed  correspondence,  we  think  the 
above  remarks  fully  justified,  by  appearances;  but  so  strange  has  appeared  the 
insertion  of  letters  of  Jones  to  Franklin,  and  the  French  Minister  to  Jones,  and 
Jones  to  the  French  Minister,  under  the  plan  laid  down  by  Mr.  Sparks,  and 
from  which  he  seems  so  widely  to  depart,  or  to  have  totally  forgotten,  that  we 
have  been  induced  to  a  re-examination  of  the  matter,  with  a  view  to  find  out, 
if  practicable,  some  reason  for  such  deviations.  L^pon  referring  to  the  original 
letters  of  Dumas,  we  find  two  tetters  of  the  date  of  the  30th  December,  1779, 
both  written  in  English.  The  second  letter  of  that  date,  addressed  to  Robert 
Morris,  containing  as  enclosures  23  numbered  papers,  is  wholly  omitted. 

The  first  letter,  30  December,  contains  a  postscript;  of  that  postscript  Mr. 


15 


Sparks  contrives  to  manufacture  a  letter,  we  will  show  the  modus  operandi,  by 
copying  the  original,  and  giving  Mr.  Sparks'  version,  as  published  by  him, 
vol.  9,  p.  404. 

"  Philadelphia.     The  honorable  Committee 
of  Foreign  Affairs. 

At  the  Hague,  Dec.  30,  1779. 

Honored  Sirs, 

The  last  three  months  having  been  entirely 
employed  in  the  service  of  the  American  squad- 
ron, at  Texel  Road,  it  was  impossible  for  me, 
during  this  whole  time,  when  never  at  home,  to 
despatch  you  any  packet  in  the  usual  way. 

This  parcel,  containing  24  numbered  papers, 
of  very  interesting  matters,  will  make  you  some 
amends. 

The  unanimous  resolution  No.  6,  may  truly 
be  called  vox  populi;  the  other,  two  No.  19  and 
20,  are  the  noise  of  an  influenced  nominal  plu- 
rality, strongly  contradicted  by  the  best  part  of 
this  country. 

Be  pleased  to  lay  this  whole  parcel  before  his 
Excellency,  the  President  in  Congress,  who 
will  receive,  at  the  same  time,  a  packet,  which 
I  forward  him  from  Commodore  Jones,  of  which 
those  papers  will  be  both  a  commentary  and  a 
supplement. 

Every  year  but  this,  honored  and  dear  sirs, 
your  committee  made  me  happy  with  a  kind 
letter.  My  conscience,  however,  tells  me,  the 
steady  friend  of  America,  at  the  Hague,  (as 
your  Baltimore  journal  has  styled  him,)  is  still 
worth  the  remembrance  and  favor  of  Congress 

May  the  new  year,  which  we  are  soon  to 
enter  in,  prove  for  the  United  States,  by  a  glo- 
rious peace,  the  commencement  of  an  infinite 
number  of  happy  ages,  prays, 

Honored  sirs, 
Your  most  ob't  and  most  h'ble  serv't, 

DUMAS — concordia,  &c. 

This  very  day,  when  I  was  just  to  close  these 
packets,  I  receive  a  letter  from  Captain  Jones, 
of  which  a  copy  is  here  joined.  I  hope  in  a 
short  time,  to  hear  of  his  good  arrival.  The  two 
prizes,  viz.  Serapis  and  Scarborough,  and  the 
two  French  ships  Pallas  and  Vengeance,  are 
still  riding  under  French  colors  and  captains. 
Our  good  Alliance,  while  here,  has  caused  me 
much  anxiety  and  trouble.  Now  she  leaves  me 
still  exposed  to  the  ill  nature  of  my  old  foes  in 
this  country,  whom,  however,  I  dread  not  so 
much  as  certain  false  friends,  highly  incensed 
now  against  me,  for  not  having  found  me  as 
blind  and  complaisant  to  their  particular  treach- 
erous views,  as  they  had  expected  I  would  be. 
The  formal  confirmation,  by  the  most  honora- 
ble Congress  general,  of  my  character  of  Agent 
of  the  United  States,  which  I  have  already 
spoken  of  in  my  former  despatches,  and  which 
I  must  entreat  you,  honored  sirs,  to  solicit  for 
me,  will  silence  them.  Indeed  I  cannot  be 
quiet,  nor  safe,  without  such  a  solemn  piece. 

I  have  from  our  good  friend,  the  pensionary 
of  Amsterdam,  the  ulterior  protestations  on  De- 
cember 22d,  of  Amst.  Dort,  Rotterdam,  and 


To  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  Hague,  Dec.  30,  1779. 

Gentlemen:  This  day  I  have  received  a  letter 
from  Captain  Jones,  of  which  a  copy  is  here 
joined.  I  hope,  in  a  short  time,  to  hear  of  his 
safe  arrival.  The  prizes,  Serapis  and  Scarbo- 
rough, and  the  two  French  ships,  Pallas  and 
Vengeance,  are  still  riding  under  French  colors 
and  captains. 

The  good  Alliance,  while  here,  has  caused 
me  much  anxiety  and  trouble.  Now  she  leaves 
me  exposed  to  the  ill-nature  of  my  old  foes  in 
this  country,  whom,  however,  I  dread  not  so 
much  as  certain  false  friends,  highly  incensed 
now  against  me,  for  not  having  found  me  as 
blind  and  complaisant  to  their  particular  views, 
as  they  had  expected  I  would  be.  The  formal 
confirmation  by  Congress,  of  my  character  as 
Agent  of  the  United  States,  which  I  have  alrea- 
dy spoken  of  in  my  former  despatches,  and 
which  I  must  entreat  you  to  procure  for  me, 
will  silence  them.  Indeed,  I  cannot  be  quiet  nor 
safe  without  such  a  testimonial. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

DUMAS. 


16 


Schiedam,  against  the  arbitrary  resolution  taken 

by  a  plurality,  on  the  17th  19  Nov.  last, 

your  honors  will  have  them  in  my  first.  They 
are  very  strong." 

The  enclosures  follow  in  regular  order,  from  No.  1  to  No.  24.  Had  Mr. 
Sparks  published  this  letter  as  he  found  it,  we  should  have  seen,  at  a  glance, 
the  reason  of  his  introducing  those  papers  (or  rather  a  part  of  them)  in  the 
correspondence  of  Dumas.  But  Mr.  Dumas  spoke  of  them  as  "  very  interest- 
ing," and  if  his  letter  had  been  published,  it  might  have  led  to  the  inquiry — 
what  has  been  done  with  these  twenty-four  interesting  papers,  and  twenty- 
three  others  which  form  their  "  commentary  and  supplement,"  enclosed  in 
another  letter  entirely  suppressed? 

Let  us  examine  for  a  moment  the  relative  effect  of  the  two  plans  of  publi- 
cation. If  these  papers,  the  two  letters  of  the  30th  December,  and  their  en- 
closures, had  fallen  within  our  limitations  of  time,  we  should  have  printed,  in 
regular  chronological  order,  the  first  letter  of  Dumas  of  the  30th  December, 
and  then  the  enclosures,  in  the  regular  order  of  their  numbers,  without  regard 
to  their  dates.  The  second  letter  of  the  30th,  would  then  follow,  and  be 
succeeded  by  its  twenty-three  enclosures,  the  "  commentary  and  supplement," 
as  Dumas  calls  them,  to  the  first  twenty-four.  To  our  simple  understanding, 
this  appears  to  be  a  very  natural  and  satisfactory  order  of  arrangement.  The 
whole  question  would  then  be  presented  to  the  public  as  Dumas  submitted  it 
to  Congress. 

That  Mr.  Sparks  found  himself  embarrased  in  his  plan  whenever  he  came 
to  enclosures,  is  obvious.  If  his  enclosures  were  permitted  to  follow  the  let- 
ters in  which  they  were  enclosed,  his  whole  system  of  "  strict  chronological 
order,"  is  upset,  for  enclosures  must  necessarily  be  of  an  earlier  date  than  the 
letter  enclosing  them.  If  he  published  the  letter  stating  the  fact  of  so  many 
documents  being  transmitted,  the  question  would  arise,  where  are  they?  The 
latter  horn  of  the  dilemma  is  evaded,  by  suppressing  such  letters;  but  unfor- 
tunately for  "  such  efficient  editorship,"  the  omission  of  the  letter  transmit- 
ting them,  the  only  evidence  that  they  are  papers  belonging  to  Dumas'  corres- 
pondence, renders  Mr.  Sparks  completely  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  inserting 
numerous  papers  in  the  different  correspondences,  irrelevant  and  foreign  to  the 
subject,  and  entirely  without  the  limit  of  his  plan,  which  was  to  bring  together 
"  those  of  each  Commissioner  or  Minister  in  strict  chronological  order." 

Whatever  may  be  the  public  estimation  of  the  respective  flans  upon  which 
the  two  series  of  Diplomatic  Correspondence  are  published,  we  say  it  openly, 
that  the  course  pursued  by  the  editor  of  the  Correspondence  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, in  omitting  large  correspondences,  purely  diplomatic,  at  his  option,  in 
making  his  free  corrections,  in  suppressing  letters,  and  making  letters  of  post- 
scripts, has  been  no  part  of  our  editorial  duty.  We  simply  gave  all  the  letters 
which  we  were  able  to  find  of  a  diplomatic  character,  from  1783  to  1789,  in 
the  Department  of  State — and  it  is  gratifying  to  make  the  declaration,  that 
having  been  since  temporarily  employed  in  that  Department,  in  completing  an 
arrangement  of  the  Revolutionary  papers,  and  of  those  of  the  Confederacy, 
from  1775  to  1789,  and  binding  them  in  volumes — even  after  handling  them, 
paper  by  paper,  till  the  labor  has  been  perfected,  we  have  discovered  nothing 
within  our  limits,  to  cause  a  regret  that  it  had  not  been  seen  earlier,  or  which 
shall  hereafter  exist  as  a  reproach  to  our  researches.  It  is  true  we  have  not 
had  access  to  the  archives  of  France  or  England,  but  a  reproach  comes  with 


17 


an  ill  grace  from  that  quarter  which  has  made  so  bad  a  use  of  our  own. 
Bad  use — we  repeat  the  words  emphatically — for  who  can  tell,  when  he  reads 
a  letter  in  Sparks'  Correspondence,  whether  it  may  not  be  so  much  distorted 
from  the  original  as  to  convey  opposite  ideas?  whether  it  is  not  a  letter  of  20 
pages  condensed  into  two?  or  a  despatch  concocted  out  of  a  postscript? 
This  subject  admits  of  amplification,  but  we  will  not  dwell  on  it,  nor  multiply 
examples  of  what  the  editors  of  the  North  American  Review  are  pleased  to 
consider  "  efficient  editorship."  The  publication  of  the  Documentary  History 
of  the  United  States,  by  Clarke  &  Force,  under  an  act  of  Congress,  will,  in  the 
course  of  a  year  or  two,  if  they  publish  all  the  papers  in  relation,  to  the  Revo- 
lution, open  this  subject  fully  to  the  investigation  of  the  public;  and,  in  that 
case,  we  assert,  will  amply  support  all  the  facts  here  related,  and  place  the 
comparative  merits  of  Sparks'  Correspondence,  printed  at  Boston,  with  the 
second  series,  from  '83  to  '89,  printed  at  Washington,  upon  that  basis  which 
truth  alone  can  sustain.  For  ourselves,  with  all  our  faults,  we  sincerely  court 
the  ordeal. 

Having  mentioned  the  Documentary  History  of  the  United  States,  we  think 
it  not  irrelevant  here  to  show,  that  the  economy  practised  by  Mr.  Livingston 
in  the  publication  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United  States 
from  '83  to  '89,  has  been  productive  of  a  still  more  important  saving  to  the 
public  Treasury.  By  the  act  approved  March  2,  1833,  making  provision  for 
the  publication  of  the  Documentary  History  of  the  Revolution,  it  is  "  provided, 
that  the  rate  of  expense  shall  not  exceed  the  actual  cost  per  volume  of  the 
Diplomatic  Correspondence  now  printing,  or  heretofore  printed,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Secretary  of  State."  Let  us  see  the  effect  of  Mr.  Living- 
ston's decision  in  making  the  work  published  here  the  basis  of  this  contract, 
instead  of  that  of  Mr.  Sparks.  He  had  effected  a  saving  of  thirty  cents  six 
mills  upon  each  volume  published  at  Washington,  less  than  the  cost  of  the 
Boston  edition.  Each  folio  of  the  Documentary  History  will  contain  7  octavos; 
7  *30.6=$2.14.2;  1500  copies  of  each  volume,  1500  x  2.14.2=$3213, 
a  saving  of  three  thousand  two  hundred  and  thirteen  dollars  upon  each  volume; 
which  sum  again  multiplied  by  twenty,  the  supposed  number  of  volumes, 
20  x  3213,  will  give  the  enormous  reduction  from  the  prices  which  Sparks 
obtained,  of  $64,260.  We  leave  this  fact  to  speak  for  itself;  it  requires  no 
comment. 

An  accusation  is  brought  against  us,  that  we  have  republished  "  ten  letters 
contained  in  the  correspondence  of  Lafayette,  [which]  are  to  be  found  in 
Sparks'  collection,  and  needed  not  to  be  repeated  in  the  present  work."  And 
further:  "  The  second  volume  of  the  work  before  us,  opens  with  the  corres- 
pondence of  Franklin.  This  correspondence,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
letters  between  Dr.  Franklin  and  Sir  Edward  Newenham,  relative  to  the 
appointment  of  a  son  of  the  latter,  as  American  Consul  in  France;  and  one 
or  two  letters,  scattered  up  and  down  in  the  series,  is  contained  in  Mr.  Sparks' 
Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Revolution.  That  it  should  thus  be  re- 
peated in  a  work  avowedly  undertaken  as  the  sequel  of  its  predecessor,  is  an 
illustration  of  that  want  of  efficient  editorship,  to  which  we  have  already  allu- 
ded.   This  is  an  inadvertence,"  &tc. 

This  accusation,  like  some  others,  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  the  eulogist 
of  Mr.  Sparks.  We  have  already  shown  that  Mr.  Spafrks,  by  the  resolution 
of  Congress  under  which  he  published,  had  no  right  to  publish  one  of  those 
letters  of  Lafayette  or  Franklin,  after  the  10th  September,  1783,  being  limited 


18 


"  specifically  to  the  date  of  the  ratification  of  the  Definitive  Treaty  of 
Peace  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  in  the  year  seventeen 
hundred  and  eighty-three."  Mr.  Sparks,  in  his  correspondence,  vol.  4,  ille- 
gally published  69  pages  of  Franklin's  Correspondence.  We  confess  we  were 
embarrassed  by  that  procedure,  and  until  the  fact  was  ascertained  of  his  hav- 
ing, as  usual,  made  large  omissions,  we  were  not  fully  assured  of  the  propriety 
of  the  republication.  The  Diplomatic  Correspondence  from  '83  to  '89,  con- 
tains 30  pages  of  additional  matter  more  than  Sparks'  Correspondence.  We 
see  no  cause  of  regret  for  the  course  pursued,  and  beg  leave  to  correct  the 
error  into  which  the  Reviewers  have  fallen,  and  to  assure  them  it  was  delibe- 
rately done  upon  grave  advisement,  and  not  an  act  of  inadvertence.  If  Mr. 
Sparks  transcended  his  limits,  we  took  care  to  keep  within  ours. 

The  same  argument  applies  to  the  republication  of  the  ten  letters  of  Lafay- 
ette. Mr.  Sparks  published  21  pages  unauthorized:  for  the  same  period  we 
have  given  70,  and  actually  published  papers  which  he  marked  as  missing 
from  the  files  of  the  Department. 

Other  acts  of  inadvertence  are  brought  against  us,  and  farther  adduced  as  a 
proof  of  our  bad  taste.  We  have  committed  the  sin  of  republishing,  in  seve- 
ral instances,  in  their  appropriate  places,  as  enclosures,  documents  transmitted 
home  by  different  Ministers,  necessary  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  paper 
which  they  accompanied,  and  which  we  might  have  avoided  by  multiplying 
notes  and  references  from  volume  to  volume.  We  have  preferred  the  method 
which  has  called  down  the  censure  of  the  North  American  Review.  We 
are  happy,  however,  to  find  ourselves  sustained  on  this  point,  by  a  similar 
course  of  Messrs.  Gales  &  Seaton,  in  their  great  publication  of  American 
State  Papers. 

The  North  American  Reviewers  observe,  page  312: 

"  The  second  volume  contains  interesting  documents,  relative  to  the  commencement,  of  our  rela- 
tions with  Morocco  and  the  other  Barbary  Powers.  The  schedule  of  presents  by  the  Dutch,  to 
the  Emperor  of  Morocco,  is  misplaced  on  the  283d  page,  in  the  middle  of  a  letter  from  the  Count 
Florida  Blanca,  of  which  it  furnishes  a  rather  abrupt  complement." 

An  absolute  falsehood!  By  referring  to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  August 
14,  1785,  vol.  2,  p.  372,  second  series,  it  will  be  seen  Mr.  Jefferson  encloses 
in  that  despatch  several  papers,  numbered  1  to  9.  They  are  printed  in  the 
exact  order  of  their  numbers,  viz.: 

No.  1.  Baron  Thulemeier  to  T.  Jefferson,  (p.  373.) 

No.  2.  Thomas  Jefferson  to  Baron  Thulemeier,  (p.  375.) 

No.  3.  Instructions  to  William  Short,  (p.  376.) 

No.  4.  Instructions  to  Charles  Dumas,  (p.  378.) 

No.  5.  Mr.  Carmichael  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  (p.  379.) 

No.  6.  Louis  Goublot  to  William  Carmichael,  (p.  380.) 

No-  7.  Count  Florida  Blanca  to  William  Carmichael,  (p.  382.) 

No.  8.  List  of  presents  by  the  States  General,  to  the  Emperor  of  Moroc- 
co, (p.  383.) 

It  is  obvious,  at  the  first  glance,  that  No.  7  is  only  an  extract  of  a  letter  from 
Count  Florida  Blanca  to  William  Carmichael,  transmitted  by  Mr.  Carmichael 
to  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  by  the  latter  to  his  Government.  The  list  of  presents 
is  precisely  in  the  position  where  it  ought  to  be,  and  the  assertion  sent  forth  to 
the  world,  in  that  extract  from  the  pages  of  the  Review,  shows  abundantly  the 
degree  of  credit  to  be  attached  to  their  assertions,  when  they  say  (p.  305) — 


19 


"Thus  much  we'  have  said,  not  censoriously  or  unkindly,  but  with  a  strict 
regard  to  truth  and  justice."  From  such  justice,  good  Lord  deliver  us;  for 
the  truth,  we  put  our  hope  in  the  old  adage,  magna  est,  fyc. 

Of  the  general  spirit  of  truth  and  justice  in  which  the  Review  is  written,  we 
present  the  following  caricature  of  the  first  Department  of  the  Government  at 
Washington: 

**.  By  whom  the  selection  and  preparation  of  the  papers  contained  in  it  were  actually  made,  we 
are  not  informed.  We  presume  that  some  of  the  gentlemen  in  the  Department  of  State  were 
employed  for  that  purpose ;  and  bestowed  upon  it  the  time  and  attention  which  could  be  spared 
from  their  other  labors.  We  have  not  the  slightest  disposition  to  reflect  unkindly  on  the  manner 
in  which  the  duty  was  performed  by  them.  We  have  no  doubt  they  did  all  that  could  reasonably 
be  expected,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  But  no  one,  who  has  but  walked  through  the 
rooms  of  an  extensive  public  office — who  has  seen  a  Department  of  Government  beset  with  the 
crowd  of  idlers  and  visiters  who  throng  it  from  curiosity — harassed  with  the  legion  of  office 
hunters,  mousing  about  for  holes  where  they  can  creep  in — wearily  trod  by  the  long-suffering  band 
of  claimants,  languishing  with  hopes  deferred — bustling  to  meet  the  urgency  of  Congressional 
calls — perplexed  with  party  troubles,  cares,  and  intrigues — alternating  from  the  gratified  officious- 
ness  of  new  incumbents,  eager  to  signalize  their  ministry,  to  the  over-applied  assiduity  of  the 
departing,  anxious  to  save  the  credit  of  their  administration.  We  say,  no  one,  who  has  glanced 
at  this  scene,  needs  to  be  told  that  this  is  not  the  place  where  a  literary  labor  is  to  be  performed. 
There  is  no  calmness  or  tranquillity  in  it.  The  air  is  hot  and  close.  Hurry  and  anxious  expecta- 
tion, and  fear  of  change,  prevail.    Painstaking,  laborious  merit,  is  a  contemptible  thing,"  &c.  &c. 

The  above  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  powers  of  distortion  exercised  in  this 
Review — of  an  imagination  we  have  elsewhere  seen  described,  capable  of 
creating  without  substance,  of  painting  without  colors,  and  of  killing  without 
crime. 

"  With  respect  to  the  typographical  execution  of  the  work  before  us,  it  is  greatly  deficient  in 
correctness." — p.  305. 

If  Mr.  Sparks  is  to  be  considered  as  the  standard  of  correct  orthography, 
and  all  deviations  from  him  heterodox,  then  we  have  erred,  especially  in  regard 
to  proper  names.  But  let  us  see  how  this  matter  stands  : — In  vol.  3,  page  12, 
Doctor  Franklin  recommends  two  Polish  officers  to  the  notice  of  General 
Washington,  Count  Pulaski  and  M.  le  Comte  Kotkouski.  This  orthography 
is  thrice  repeated  in  vol.  3,  p.  v.,  p.  12.  In  an  original  letter,  we  find  the 
celebrated  Polish  officer  signed  his  name  Kosciuszko. 

Vol.  4,  p.  243,  for  Bourgoyne,  read  Burgoyne. 

Vol.  1,  p.  10,  Messrs.  Plairne  k,  Penet's,  read  Pliarne,  &c. 

Idem,  p.  139,  Duke  de  Vauguyson,  read  Vauguyon. 

Same  page,  M.  Monthieu,  read  M.  Montieu. 

Error  six  times  repeated,  pp.  140,  141  ;  corrected  vol.  1,  p.  318. 

Vol.  J,  p.  197,  Montpellier,  read  Montpelier. 

Idem,  p.  148,  Horneca  Fitzeau,  read  Horneca  Fizeauz. 

Idem,  p.  310,  General  Putman's,  read  Putnam's. 

Idem,  p.  388,  livres  turnois,  read  livres  tournois. 

Vol.  4,  pp.  401,  402,  Courrier  de  F  Europe,  read  Courier,  he. 

We  have  been  at  some  trouble  to  consult  original  documents  for  the  true 
orthography  of  names  corrected  above,  and  have  given  the  right  reading;  but 
in  several  instances  Mr.  Sparks  has  corrected  himself.  Without  troubling  the 
reader  with  multiplied  examples  within  our  power  of  the  same  kind,  we  will 
only  inquire  of  those  reviewers,  so  prompt  to  discover  a  mote  in  their  neighbors' 
eye,  from  what  language  Mr.  Sparks  derives  authority  for  the  word  Senior,  as 
we  find  it  vol.  l^p.  468  :  "  Senior  Martinelli  ?"    The  word  is,  undoubtedly^ 


20 


an  English  adjective;  but  we  presume  Mr.  Sparks  does  not  mean  the  elder 
Martinelli.  Martinelli  appears  to  have  been  an  Italian,  and  therefore  Signore 
might  have  been  used.  Two  other  nations  use  the  term,  and  nearer  alike  in 
sound  than  orthography.  The  Spaniards  write  SeHor;  the  Portuguese  Senhor: 
but  the  word  has  been  Anglicised,  is  spelled  Seignior,  and  there  is  therefore 
no  apolog)r  for  the  use  of  the  adjective  Senior,  which  has  a  definite  "\neaning, 
and  is  entirely  out  of  place  as  used  by  Mr.  Sparks. 

In  relation  to  the  imperfections,  "  with  respect  to  the  typographical  execution 
of  the  work,"  charged  upon  the  Washington  edition,  and  the  alleged  superiority 
of  that  of  Boston,  we  deny  the  assertions  of  the  North  American  Review,  and 
appeal  to  facts.  The  two  editions  are  before  the  world.  The  types  used 
for  the  Washington  edition  were  new,  purchased  by  Mr.  Blair  expressly  for 
the  occasion,  and  the  press-work  done  by  hand.  Sparks'  edition  was  printed 
on  "  Hale's  steam-press,"  and  with  a  worn-out  type,  which,  by  the  time  he 
printed  the  last  volume,  was  almost  illegible.  The  paper  used  at  Washington 
is  of  a  much  superior  quality  to  the  other,  a  difference  of  at  least  one  dollar  per 
ream,  which  of  course  was  another  item  of  profit  to  Mr.  Sparks. 

In  the  numerous  extracts  which  have  been  made  from  the  North  American 
Review,  we  have  shown  the  degree  of  candor  and  impartiality  due  to  that 
periodical,  when  the  interests  of  themselves  or  their  friends  is  the  point  at  issue. 
The  following  extract  is  intended  to  show  them  in  a  more  amiable  light — to 
expose  the  frankness  with  which  they  treat  the  political  opinions  of  their  friends. 

"  What  would  a  logician  like  Jay  have  thought  of  the  Nullifier  of  that  day,  who  should  have 
attempted  to  escape  the  wholesome  and  direct  common  sense  of  this  argument,  by  maintaining, 
that,  if  the  treaty  was  unconstitutional,  the  States  might  annul  it] — as  if  a  claim  on  the  part  of 
the  State  to  annul  the  acts  of  the  confederated  Government  were  any  the  less  ridiculous  and  irra- 
tional, because  it  was  founded  on  a  right  lirst  to  pronounce  them  unconstitutional !  So  with  the 
modern  doctrine  of  Nullification.  The  citizens  of  the  States  are  bound  to  obey  all  constitutional 
laws  of  Congress;  their  State  Governments  cannot  absolve  them  from  this  obligation.  It  would 
be  as  ridiculous  in  practice  as  it  would  be  irrational  in  theory  for  a  State  to  arrogate  the  power  of 
annulling  constitutional  laws.  But  then  it  has  the  power,  at  all  times — amidst  the  heats  of  party 
and  in  the  turmoil  of  elections,  and  under  the  influence  of  whatever,  in  a  popular  Government,  can 
disturb  the  calm  empire  of  the  understanding,  and  give  force  to  the  passions — to  declare  any  law 
unconstitutional,  and  then  pronounce  it  null,  and  release  the  citizens  from  obedience." 

We  have  no  comment  to  make,  and  give  the  quotation  merely  to  show  the 
ease  and  familiarity  with  which  burning  coals  may  be  handled  by  the  prac- 
tised charlatan. 

In  the  same  number  of  the  North  American  Review  to  which  we  are  indebted 
for  their  notice,  in  their  article  on  periodical  literature  of  the  United  States, 
page  298,  it  is  stated,  that  "  in  1822,  the  work  (North  American  Review) 
was  again  transferred  to  Mr.  Sparks,  and  in  1830  it  passed  into  the  hands  of 
the  present  Editor.  Under  all  the  changes  in  its  editorial  management,  it  has 
been  chiefly  sustained  by  the  labors  of  the  same  persons  who  w7ere  originally 
the  principal  contributors,  and  to  whose  valuable  aid  our  readers  are  still 
indebted  for  much  of  whatever  entertainment  and  instruction  may  be  found  in 
its  pages." 

From  the  above  admission  of  the  Review,  the  presumption  is  a  violent  one, 
that  Mr.  Sparks  being  one  of  the  "  principal  contributors,"  that  he  himself  has 
been  the  author  of  the  very  entertaining  and  instructive  article  upon  the  Diplo- 
matic Correspondence  from  '83  to  '89,  as  well  as  of  other  articles,  Reviews  of 
his  own  productions.  Who  so  competent  as  that  "learned  and  indefatigable 
editor"  to  do  our  feeble  efforts  impartial  justice— himself  a  disappointed  appli- 


-21 


cant!  Who  can  appreciate  his  merit  so  well  as  himself!  We  are  strongly 
confirmed  in  the  opinion  that  to  Mr.  Sparks  we  are  indebted  for  the  very 
entertaining  articles  scattered  so  profusely  through  the  numbers  of  the  North 
American  Review,  of  which  himself  and  his  works  are  the  subject.  We 
proceed  to  make  a  few  extracts  from  different  articles,  to  show  the  identity  of 
the  Reviewer  and  the  Reviewed.  The  first  extract  we  make  (Diplomatic  Cor- 
respondence, vol.  1,  page  12)  is  avowedly  by  Mr.  Sparks. 

"  The  editor's  researches  in  the  public  offices  of  England  and  France,  with  particular  reference 
to  the  early  diplomatic  relations  between  those  countries  and  the  United  States,  have  put  in  his 
possession  a  body  of  facts  on  the  subjects  discussed  in  these  papers,  which  might  have  been  used 
to  advantage  in  supplying  corrections  and  explanations;  but,  for  the  reason  abovementioned,  he 
has  not  deemed  himself  authorized  to  assume  such  a  duty.  He  is  not  without  the  expectation, 
however,  that  the  public  will  hereafter  be  made  acquainted  with  the  results  of  his  inquiries  in  some 
other  form." 

North  American  Review  for  October,  1831,  p.  477: 

"  Without  enlarging  on  this  point,  we  will  but  refer  our  readers  to  an  article  in  a  former  num- 
ber of  this  journal  written  by  Mr.  Sparks,  the  indefatigable  and  judicious  editor  of  the  work  before 
us,  to  whose  researches  into  the  Revolutionary  history  of  America,  as  contained  in  the  archives 
of  this  country,  of  France,  and  of  England,  the  public  is  under  the  highest  obligations." 

Same  volume,  page  484: 

"  Meantime  we  must  not  omit,  in  closing  our  desultory  notice  of  the  present  collection,  to  repeat 
our  thanks  to  Mr.  Sparks  for  the  manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  his  duty,  in  preparing  it  for 
the  press.  He  has  reduced  the  vast  mass  of  materials  to  convenient  order,  and  supplied  from 
other  and  authentic  sources  the  lamentable  chasms  in  the  files  of  the  Department  of  State." 

We  have  seen  the  truth  of  all  this! 

North  American  Review  for  October,  1834,  p.  302: 

"  In  his  laborious  researches  in  the  public  offices  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  he  had  collected 
ample  materials,  which  enabled  him  to  fill  up  numerous  and  important  chasms,  in  the  various 
parts  of  the  correspondence  of  our  public  agents  preserved  in  the  Department  of  State." 

For  example,  Lee's  and  Dumas'  correspondences! 

North  American  Review,  October,  1834,  p.  478 — [the  Washington  papers:] 

"  He  has  made  it  a  matter  of  conscience  to  visit  the  scenes  of  most  of  the  important  events  in 
our  history, — to  examine  in  person  the  archives  of  Congress  and  of  the  United  States,  represented 
in  that  body,  as  well  as  the  private  collections  of  many  revolutionary  characters  of  note;  and 
finally  to  explore  the  immense  repositories  in  the  foreign  offices  of  the  British  and  French  Govern- 
ments." 

Who  but  Mr.  Sparks  would  know  any  thing  about  his  conscience!  If  he  had 
had  a  little  in  relation  to  us,  or  borne  in  mind  the  34th  aphorism  of  Washington, 
"  detract  not  from  others,  neither  be  excessive  in  commending,"  we  should 
have  been  saved  the  trouble  of  this  reply,  and  the  reviewers  have  remained 
unreviewed.  If  the  above  extracts  are  not  from  the  same  pen,  the  reviewer 
and  reviewed  certainly  write  much  alike;  the  same  idea  of  voyages,  and  labo- 
rious researches,  and  chasms  filled,  is  the  predominant  one;  and  yet  they  may 
have  no  more  connexion  than  the  Siamese  twins! 

Of  the  degree  of  fulsome  adulation  addressed  to  Mr.  Sparks  throughout  the 
pages  of  the  North  American  Review,  we  propose  but  one  more  example, 
which  we  extract  from  page  468,  October,  1834: 

"  It  is  fortunate  that  the  preparation  of  the  work  [Washington  papers]  has  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  a  person  every  way  so  well  qualified  to  execute  it  to  the  public  satisfaction  as  the  present  editor. 
On  this  point,  we  have  expressed  ourselves  so  fully  in  a  preceding  article  of  this  number,  that  it 
is  unnecessary  to  add  any  thing  in  this  connexion."    Mr.  Sparks'  former  publications  of  a  similar 


22 


kind,  afford  the  best  evidence  of  his  qualifications;"  [verily,  we  think  so  too!]  "and  the  great 
experience  he  has  now  acquired  in  the  editorial  profession,  the  unwearied  labor  which  he  has  be- 
stowed upon  this  undertaking,"  &c. 

By  another  extract  or  two  from  the  same  article,  p.  469,  we  will  endeavor 
to  show  the  extent  of  the  great  good  fortune  of  the  public,  [mere  printing 
falling  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Sparks,]  here  and  elsewhere  so  glowingly 
depicted,  that  we  are  strongly  reminded  of  "  the  last  highest  prize  drawn  here," 
or  "  the  latest  improvement  in  challenge  blacking,"  all  equally  fair  puffs, 
whether  the  sale  of  a  lottery  ticket,  or  a  Boston  book,  with  Jared  Sparks  upon 
the  back,  fresh  from  "  Hale's  steam-press,"  be  the  vendible  article.  In  the 
one  case,  forty  or  fifty  per  cent,  is  no  reduction;  in  the  other,  like  the  lamp 
of  Aladdin,  old  types  are  better  than  new,  and  common  paper  superior  to  fine 
vellum. 

In  the  printing  of  the  Washington  papers,  we  are  told  by  the  reviewers, 
page  469,  of  two  rules: 

"  He  [Mr.  Sparks]  has  labored  to  follow  as  exactly  as  possible: — First,  to  select  such  parts  as 
have  a  permanent  value,  on  account  of  the  historical  facts  which  they  contain — whether  in  relation 
to  actual  events,  or  to  the  political  designs  and  operations  in  which  Washington  was  a  leading  or 
conspicuous  agent;  secondly,  to  take  such  other  parts  as  contain  the  views,  opinions,  counsels, 
and  reflections  of  the  writer,  on  the  various  topics  suggested  to  him  by  the  occasion,  and  serve  to 
exhibit  the  structure  of  his  mind,  its  powers  and  resources,  and  the  peculiar  traits  of  his  personal 
character." 

Let  us  now  hear  Mr.  Sparks,  [preface  to  the  second  volume  Washington 
Papers,]  which  the  North  American  Review  also  quotes,  page  469: 

"~  "According  to  this  plan,  [the  two  rules  above,]  when  a  letter  throughout  bears  the  features  above 
described,  it  will  be  printed  entire. 

"But  many  of  the  letters,  both  in  the  public  and  private  correspondence,  for  the  reasons  already 
assigned,  will  necessarily  be  printed  with  omissions  of  unimportant  passages,  relating  chiefly  to 
topics  or  facts  evanescent  in  their  nature,  and  temporary  in  their  design. 

"Nor  is  this  difficult;  because  the  omitted  passages  usually  treat  upon  separate  and  distinct 
subjects,  and  may  be  removed  without  injury  to  the  remaining  portions  of  the  letter." 

From  the  plan  here  laid  down  by  Mr.  Sparks,  though  the  Washington 
Papers  have  sat  for  the  picture,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  recognising,  as  if  in  a 
mirror,  the  real  Simon  Pure,  "  The  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Ameri- 
ca^ Revolution,  edited  by  Jared  Sparks."  We  have  here  really  the  plan  of 
that  early  specimen  of  the  efficient  editorship,"  as  the  Review  is  pleased  to 
term  it,  of  Mr.  Sparks,  which  appears  by  his  own  showing,  as  well  as  ours, 
(and  we  are  pleased  to  have  arrived  at  a  definition  of  the  term,)  to  consist  in 
mutilating  the  letters  of  his  author,  separating  facts  evanescent  from  facts  not 
evanescent,  topics  temporary  from  topics  otherwise,  and  taking  care,  in  doing 
so,  not  to  mar  the  sense  nor  the  meaning  of  the  writer.  Mr.  Sparks  tells  us 
this  is  not  difficult :  his  alter  ego  speaks  of  the  "unwearied  labor"  and  for  once 
ventures,  in  the  most  delicate  manner  conceivable,  an  opinion,  if  an  opinion  it 
may  be  called,  where  a  thing  is  spoken  of  as  merely  questionable: 

"  If  any  part  of  the  plan,  as  thus  explained  and  developed  by  the  editor,  could  be  regarded  as 
questionable,  it  would  perhaps  be  the  occasional  omission  of  portions  of  letters,  of  which  other 
portions  are  retained.  As  a  general  principle,  we  consider  it  highly  important,  that  in  all  collec- 
tions of  this  kind,  the  documents  published  should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  entire.  In  most  case% 
subjects  so  nearly  connected  in  time,  place,  or  the  personal  relations  of  the  writer,  as  to  come 
within  the  compass  of  the  same  letter,  will  have,  though  they  may  not  be  apparent  to  the  casual 
reader,  bearings  upon  each  other,  which  may  serve  to  explain  and  modify  the  statements  made,  or 


23 


the  opinions  given  upon  each.  Hence  the  perusal  of  a  letter,  known  not  to  be  entire,  with  what- 
ever discretion  the  omission  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  made,  can  never  give  us  the  same 
assurance  that  we  are  in  possession  of  the  wTriters  views,  which  we  should  feel  if  we  had  the 
whole  before  us.  We  are  aware,  that  there  may  be  cases,  in  which  a  too  scrupulous  adherence  to 
the  principle  of  publishing  all  documents  and  letters  entire,  might  be  inconvenient,  in  a  collection 
of  moderate  extent,  like  the  present;  but  we  would  venture  to  suggest  to  Mr.  Sparks,  the  expedi- 
ency of  deviating  from  it  as  rarely  as  possible,  in  the  further  progress  of  his  labor,  especially  with 
papers  of  much  importance  or  interest." 

Concurring,  as  we  do,  in  the  propriety  of  the  above  remarks,  we  cannot  but 
smile  at  the  degree  of  humility  and  profound  deference  with  which  the  Re- 
viewer "  ventures  to  suggest,"  and  "  if  any  part  of  the  plan  could  be  regarded 
as  questionable;"  forming  so  bold  a  contrast  with  the  style  and  manner  of  the 
Review  of  theXJorrespondence  from  '83  to  J89,  that  we  scarcely  know  whether 
we  should  preier  to  be  vilified,  or  to  be  praised,  at  that  rate;  at  all  events,  we 
are  in  no  danger  of  Being  spoiled  by  the  tardy  compliment  of  the  Review, 
when  it  tells  us  somewhat  encouragingly,  "  The  editorship  of  the  seventh 
volume  is  decidedly  superior  to  that  of  most  of  its  predecessors." — page  329. 

The  Quarterly  Review  thought  the  whole  work  done  in  a  creditable  mode. 
With  the  view  of  sustaining  the  Quarterly,  in  the  opinion  which  it  appears  to 
have  deliberately  formed,  we  give  the  following  letters  upoxi  that  subject,  from 
sources  which  we  think  even  the  North  American  Review  will  admit  to  be 
entitled  to  attention: 

Montgomery  Place,  Jclt  30,  1833. 
Dear  Sir:  I  have  received  the  5th  and  6th  volumes  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence,  and 
although,  on  the  point  of  my  departure,  I  have  not  had  time  to  examine  them,  I  have  not  the  least 
doubt  that  you  have  paid  the  same  attention  to  the  selection  of  the  matter  and  the  execution  of 
the  printing  that  you  bestowed  on  the  preceding  volumes.  I  with  great  pleasure  bear  witness  to 
the  industry  and  judgment  which  you  employed  while  I  was  in  the  Department;  and  I  sincerely 
hope  that  some  occasion  may  be  found  for  employing  your  talents  in  the  service  of  the  Govern- 
ment, being  persuaded  that  in  any  task  that  requires  fidelity,  diligfence,  and  a  high  talent  for  busi- 
ness, you  will  do  honor  to  yourself  and  great  service  to  the  country*, 
With  my  best  wishes,  &c. 

I  am,  &c.  * 

EDWARD  LIVINGSTON. 

Wm.  A.  Weaver,  Esq. 

Department  of  State,  Washington,  April  14,  1834. 
Sir:  I  have  received  your  communication  of  the  10th  instant,  informing  me  that  the  service  in 
which  you  have  been  engaged,  under  the  direction  of  this  Department,  in  preparing  for  the  press, 
and  superintending  the  publication  of  the  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United  States  from 
1783  to  1789,  has  been  completed. 

In  terminating  your  employment  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  express  my  entire  satisfaction  at  the 
manner  in  which  the  duties  assigned  you  have  been  performed. 

I  am,  respectfully,  &c. 

LOUIS  McLANE, 

Secretary  of  State. 

To  William  A.  Weaver,  Esof. 

Washington. 

•  • 

On  this  point,  we  hope  the  North  American  Review  is  now  satisfied".  That 
they  were  not  informed  earlier  "  by  whom  the  selection  and  preparation  of  the 
papers  contained  in  it  were  actually  made," — they  are  at  liberty  to  impute 
either  to  our  modesty,  wfiich  was  satisfied  with  the  approbation  of  our  supe- 
rior?, or  to  the  absence  of*  a  private  speculatK5n,  in  connexion  with  the  public 
printing,  which  rendered  puffing  unnecessarv. 


